"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Helmsman3 wrote:

Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that
doesn't
allow in any dust.

A minor point.

Takes images in absolute silence.

Nice.

The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long
zoom,

What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish
eye?

What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting,
resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image
less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you
describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones
(for the class).

all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even
the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings.

f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent?
At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400?

Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at
1/2s --- not handholdable.

The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability.

Weight?

Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments.

Inbuild battery heaters?
Battery capacity (CIPA)?

Let
us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high
resolution
enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed
anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise.

Technically impossible. You cannot exceed light speed, so
any EVF will be slower than optical, and will thus provide
worse feedback. No EVF currently on the market in consumer
cameras is able to math the resolution and dynamic range of
the human eye.

Lets also presume that these P&S camera designers also had the
foresight to include the options of shooting in the IR and UV portions
of the spectrum too.

How about the capabilities of a macro bellows or the MP-E or
just a common 100mm macro lens?

This of course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical
viewfinder in the world can accomplish this.

People have been shooting IR with *film* cameras long before
there was a EVF or even a digital sensor. So your 'of course'
is of course, wrong.

Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality video

HDTV?
2k?
4k?
And on which terrabyte medium will you store that?

and CD quality stereo sound recording

What microphone are you using?


Poof! There goes any need for the cumbersome lens interchangeability,
size,
weight, noise, dust, high-cost, focal-plane shutter limitations,
inaccurate and
dim OVF, and all the other drawbacks to using any DSLR.

"inaccurate and dim OVF". Interesting. What OVF have you
been using?


Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S
cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF)
with only
2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses.

What was that word again? Image quality?

I've already had thousands of photos published with this combo.

Ansel Adams managed to get the odd photo published and sold,
even though he had much more restrictive gear. Of course you can
produce good images with a P&S, if you know what you are doing,
and if you don't, the most expensive camera will not rescue you.

Not one person yet can tell that
they were done with P&S gear. A whole kit of 1 camera + 2 lenses fitting
into
one large pocket. If these two P&S camera's features were combined nobody
would
think twice about buying a DSLR. I certainly never do.

Ah, which P&S were that again? And which lenses?
How much shutter lag do they have?
How fast is the AF?

So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell
to the
DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges,
precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens?

I can name a few good reasons.

Nobody
thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a
short 5
years ago.

My gear spans a 28x zoom range in excellent quality, and if I
want to stretch it a bit, 140x is within my capabilities.
200x or 300x is not unheard of.
Does your lens offer that?

Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two
thing to
which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto.

Let's add:
- Excellent zoom range (see above: 100x is not a problem)
- excellent macro gear (5:1? No problem! 20:1? What's a
macro bellows for?)
- very fast focussing, hence very low lag
- 6+FPS and deep deep buffers
- optical view finders --- try your EVF in moonlight
- very good long exposure image quality
- really good image quality and yet a portable system is
possible
- I can use my lenses as a makeshift club and go on shooting
with them. No problem.
- f/1.0, f/1.2, f/1.4 ...
- DOF of 2 sheets of paper (as in, the tip of the nose and
the base of the nose are already outside the DOF, but the
middle of it is razor sharp.
- intelligent, automatic remote multi-flash system

And at what cost? Dust problems?

No problem.

Noise?

Little if any.

Camera shake from the mirror and shutter?

Not really a problem.

Slow mechanical shutter limitations?

x-sync 1/250s, I don't think that's a 'slow' limitation.
Does your P&S offer better values?

Bulk? Weight?

Not necessarily a drawback.

Do I need to list all the drawbacks?

Yes.

Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete.

Nope.
They add another choice, something P&S don't have. Many P&S
don't even allow their users to choose exposure and/or aperture.
Practially none of them can change important parameters without
going through a menu. Which is all right, if you stalk buildings
--- except during earth quakes. Most of them don't move much
faster than you can go through your menues.

They are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO
performance.

Show me one P&S that allows me to shoot at handheld at LV -1 or
-2 ... without washing out details nor drowning in image noise.

When
it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has
enough
aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR.

f/0.7? f/0.5? Less?

Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a
matter of
"when".

In a couple billion years, when the sun turns into a red giant,
we probably won't be using DSLRs on Earth any more.

Based on a design that is half a century old with all the same
limitations that were inherent in that format from way back then.

Compared to P&S, which are based on on the box cameras, like
"the Kodak" from 1888 ("You press the button - we do the
rest."). They still have all the limitations inherent in
that format from, uh, a full century and 19 years ago.


The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be those
more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them
than
actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You
know,
the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run
with the
mindless herd for fear of getting lost.

You really run out of arguments early-

The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when
looking
back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its
inherent
faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up
with
those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard.

Sure, and you will be crowned "King of the World".

-Wolfgang

Come on mate, you are not going to let all these facts get in the way of a
good troll are you? ;-)

What bloody rocks do these idiots crawl out from under???

I really loved the "thousands of photos published", riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight,
LOL!